Archive for the 'Politics' Category

We are now at the eve of the great “Picnic Table Summit”. No doubt right now Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Sgt. James Crowley are now preparing for their trip to the White House.

Pick Out The Racist in this Picture

Let me give you a little sneak preview of what’s going to happen and why Sgt. Crowley should stay home.

Professor Gates will arrive at the White House first, due to his long standing relationship with the President. He will pose for photos with the President as they laugh about the fast one they are about to pull on America and the officer himself. Sgt. Crowley will arrive afterward wearing a suit and not his police uniform because that would be too inflammatory. We don’t want to upset the venerable Dr. Gates after all. In fact, Sgt. Crowley has now doubt been instructed not to be seen in his uniform tomorrow.

They will stop and pose for pictures with the press corps and then wonder over to the famed picnic table, that Father Obama had installed next to his children’s swing-set.

President Obama will waive his hands so the press looking out the window can see him “making a point”.

Afterwards, despite the fact that racial profiling had NOTHING to do with the case, with Crowley to his left the President will make a short statement talking about the dangers of racial profiling and how he’s experienced it himself, how he fought racial profiling while he was a state senator.

Despite the fact that racial profiling had NOTHING to do with the case, our great Papa Obama will use this “teachable moment” to reassert the ills of the retched practice. And Sgt. Crowley WILL be made to look guilty when he has done nothing wrong. Ohh I guess he might push the President out of the way and be like ” what the Hell!” but the likelihood of that happening is exactly zero. And the press wouldn’t do their job, even if they were given an opportunity to ask unscripted questions and weren’t pre-authorized.

Despite the fact that racial profiling had NOTHING to do with the case, Obama will save face by using this opportunity to to address this horrible practice but will do it at the wrong time and certainly for the wrong reasons. With a single speech about racial profiling (which didn’t occur) Papa Obamawill immediately save face for weighing in too early when he knew none of the facts and exonerate his friend from the ridiculous manner in which he conducted himself. Mark my words Papa Obama will not say “Sgt Crowley was not racially profiling Gates when he made the arrest”, because to do so would be to publicly convict his friend and fellow academic.

Despite the fact that racial profiling had NOTHING to do with the case, the press will lap it up, like the Obama Stenographers they have turned out to be. Suddenly Professor Gates behavior as documented in this police report and ccorroborated by other African-American Officers who were at the scene, will no longer be the story. Instead it WILL become a story about racial profiling because the president and his guilty-racist friend have made it one. And Sgt. Crowley will be the cover boy.

Police officers leave their homes, their spouses, and their children every single day to protect the people they work for and some don’t know that they won’t be coming home. When Sgt. Crowley responded to the burglary in progress call he didn’t ask if the home was owned by a black man or a white man. The fact is he went to the scene and confronted the very first person he saw in the property, not knowing if he had a gun or was going to harm him or someone else.

What is the chance that Obama turns to his friend and says ” You were out of line! This fine officer did nothing wrong.” None. The only possible outcome of this meeting is that Sgt. Crowley will be stained with the stench of racial profiling not by arresting a racist but by agreeing to be rolled out for the dog and pony with him afterwards.

Sgt. Crowley Stay Home. I’ll send you a 12 pack to your house if you’d like a beer. You could have a far more positive influence if you didn’t show up for this mockery. You still won’t get your apology.

Doctor: “I don’t know what’s causing these symptoms, but I’d like you to take this. It will make you better”

Patient: “OOOOKKKKK, what is this medicine for?

Doctor: “Well I’ve always thought that this would be good for people to take. It should fix what’s wrong with you.”

Patient: “What is wrong with me?”

Doctor: “I don’t know. But take this . .. . you can trust me . . .I’m a Doctor”

Would any of us accept this prescription from a physician? I don’t think so. No, if we have a problem we typically try to understand what is causing the problem and address the cause of the issue. In fact, in medicine we spend a great deal of time and money trying to get at the root cause of problems. Only once we’ve identified the root cause, can we then get a diagnosis, and only then can we embark on a proper treatment.

Why then are we in such a hurry to pass a $900 Billion “Stimulus” Package without identifying the root cause of the problem it is supposed to address? Logically it follows without identifying the cause of the problem that this package could exacerbate the problem as much as it could help?

We are talking about passing a Spending Bill that will require the Treasury to Borrow $900 Billion dollars (mostly from the Chinese) and then spend it, with the expectation that spending more than all but 11 National Economies will restart ours. And we are not talking about HOW we got here.

It was easy for Democrats on the campaign trail to PIN this on the Bush Administration. Well, having made such claims, I expect they can now tell us exactly what policies or mistakes the Bush Administration made and how this Package will address those problems . . .right? No? Well why not?

Why would the Congress with overwhelming Democratic control not turn a critical eye to the past and point out the previous administrations warts and scars for all to see? Are they too busy delaying the rollout of Digital TV Broadcasting, debating the credibility of tax cheats and lobbyists, and setting the salaries of CEO’s? Or could it possibility be that even a rudimentary analysis of this crisis would implicate them and their policies?

This post will not be overly long, nor be very insightful in talking about the recession and the current economic problems we are in. The point of this blog post is to get the word out about somebody that I am rapidly becoming a huge fan of. That person, Peter Schiff, President of Euro Pacific Capital.

Peter was one of the few people who decided it was better to think with common sense and tell the truth a few years ago. In this post there are going to be several links to videos discussing his predictions in 2006 and discussions with other experts who just about laughed him off the screen. Along with a link to an article where he discusses why, no matter how painful, the recession needs to happen.

In this series we have taken a second look at Barack Obama and I beleive have found that a sympathetic press has truely protected him and his ideas from scrutiny. It’s been an organized effort that now culminates in an attempt to dissuade Republicans from even voting. But in Part IV – A New Hope we found that when his ideas, and that of if Democratic supporters, are exposed, the truth (with the help of a lightsaber) burns through his rehtoric and his true intentions are revealed.

Now I want to address the heart of his campaign . . . . the hope for change.

Barack Obama has created a tidal wave of expectations that now cresendo to a level no lower than changing the world. He stokes the buring desires of people who are truely hurting with the promise that he can fix what ails them. He can fix the Economy, he can fix Health Care, he can fix the Environment, and he can even bring peace to a world at war. He has successfully gotten millions of people to support him by addressing NOT the problems themselves but by simply appealling to Americans natural capcity to beleive that the future could be better. To hope that someone new may bring something different. He has so convincingly made Hope his unofficial trademark that anyone attempting to challenge him is labeled mean-spirited or unbalanced (come on who can be against Hope???).

We all hope that things will be better, that the poor will become successful, that the sick will be healed, that our children can go to college, that our Economy will stablize, that those who want to work will find it, and that we as a people can put our differences aside. But Hope is not enough!

Hope is not enough because Hope and Change ARE NOT THE SAME! In fact, they are opposites. Hope means to internally desire something . . . Change on the other hand is an action that requires us to do something.

Hope Will NOT Help The Poor!

Hope Will NOT Heal The Sick!

Hope Will NOT Educate Our Children!

Hope Will Not “Fix Our Economy!

Hopw Will NOT Clean Our Environment!

These problems require action. If these problems are to change they require that we DO something, that we Change something. In his professional career Barack Obama has not DONE a single thing to fix any of these problems. If you beleive that his experience meets the level necessary to be the President of the United States, than why has he NOT already made headway is trying to fix even one of these problems? There is no legislation he has introduced to address any of these issues, instead he has appealled to our Hope. Notice I said our Hope. This is not something that Obama has given to us . . . its something we’ve always had. Some had just forgotten how to express it.

John McCain, unlike Barack Obama, has an extensive history of actively seeking change to address our problems. Of reaching across the aisle to Democrats and Republicans (hell we thought of him as a Democrat half the time) to create solutions to problems. He has worked to bring about Change . . . not Hoped that Change would occur. That experience and that Demonstration of a willingness to break with the pack is the reason John McCain is the better candidate for President. And that is the reason he will get my vote tomorrow.

The concept is simple: Manage the federal budget much the same way we manage our own personal finances and everything will be fine. In fact, I believe, if sound financial principals are used, the federal government and, consequently, our economy will prosper beyond anything we have seen before in the United States.

Most of us have a set level of income. We make all types of decisions based on that income….what can we buy? How much can we save? What will have left over? What should we do in the future? Sometimes we come up a little short at the end of the month and sometimes we come out ahead. The bottom line is that the amount of money we make and have on hand directs how we conduct our financial affairs in the future. So why can’t the government show similar restraint? The simple answer: THEY CAN!!

In fact, we, the American people, should DEMAND that our government stop assuming that the money we pay them is rightfully theirs. We should insist that they treasure the money that our hard labor produced, show some restraint and make wise decisions. Any of us could be unemployed at any time, so we work hard to make sure we have a job and an income. We try to show the source of our income (our employer) that we are worth of the money they give us. That the money they give us produces an equal return of services on their behalf. That’s how our government should view the money we give them.

With that rather lengthy introduction in mind, I want to now share with you my solution for our current economic crisis…..which will, hopefully, prevent any future problems. First, I will briefly list the main points, then I will discuss them further:

1. Implement the Fair Tax
2. Create responsible borrowing guidelines for our government
3. Establish a transparent record of all government transactions

Disclaimer – My plan does not necessarily address reforming government spending. That is a whole different blog debate. However, if implemented, my solution will certainly bring the governments spending under greater scrutiny and, therefore, excercise a certain amount of control and influence over future expenditures.

1. Implement the Fair Tax – This step accomplishes 2 things: Provides the federal government with the same level of income they get now from all forms of taxes and puts money back in the hands of you, the taxpayer. Briefly, the Fair Tax replaces income, capital gains, corporate, death, FICA and Medicare taxes with a national consumption tax on all new goods. This is revenue-neutral for the government but will allow every American to take home his entire paycheck.

With the governments income back in the control of the people, we have instantly made the government accountable. Plus, the economy would see a tremendous boost from the additional spending by the citizens. Companies will come back to our shores, jobs will be created and the entire economy will be back on the road to unprecedented prosperity.

2. Create responsible borrowing guidelines for our government – This step will set forth restrictions and dollar limits on how much our government can borrow and for what purposes. We are all limited by our credit score and ability to repay and our government should be likewise limited.

First, the American people have a SURPLUS of almost $52 TRILLION in assets. I propose that we make our government borrow from it’s citizens and pay us all those dollars in interest payments ($239 billion in 2008) instead of paying it to foreign countries. The government should have to propose a CLEAN bill (no earmarks) to the Congress for an up-or-down vote. If the program passes Congress and is within credit limit guidelines, our government then is authorized to ask the American people for the money through loan guarantees at VERY competitive interest rates.

In case you were wondering, our national debt is just over $10 trillion…..I think we can cover that with our $52 trillion, don’t you? And I would certainly be willing to loan my government some money for a 5-7% return (today) and a promise to pay it back within a specified time period. How about you? But if they can’t get enough from the American people, we can allow them to seek other funding sources…again, within pre-set guidelines and limits. For example, no more than 10% from foreign sources. Afterall, we have access to credit for unexpected or extraordinary expenses, so I don’t see why the government shouldn’t have the same benefit…as long as we approve the spending.

Currently, the public holds a little over half ($5.8 trillion) of our national debt, but the rates are crap. Up the rates to a competitive level and they would probably get more takers.

I know that was long, but thanks for sticking with me! 🙂

3. Establish a transparent record of all government transactions – Finally, we, the American people, need to know what’s going on AT ALL TIMES. There should be a website specifically set up to chronicle, archive, track and debate any and all extra speding the government wants to initiate.

This website should post the full bill (which will be very short because we will require it to be CLEAN) and the full voting results. This website should also handle the loan request, which will have a descriptive name so citizens can pick and choose which programs they want their money to support. For example, let’s say the government proposes and Congress passes a bill to fund a new Consumer Protection bill. You got to the site, browse the list of government loan requests and select “Consumer Protection Department Funding Bill 2008”. You read the description, decide you like that idea because you got screwed on a bad washing machine and you loan your government $1000 dollars to help get it started.

How will the government pay you back? How about the extra tax revenues generated by the new national consumption tax and a country full of citizens with their full paychecks in their pockets? Or new tax revenues from the black-market sales that will now be taxed? Or the new tax revenues from tourists that come over here and purchase goods and services?

In conclusion, it’s a simple concept whose time has come: Let the people keep their money to bolster the economy and make our government accountable to those same people for their spending. Once again, a government for the people and by the people.

I’ve been toying with publishing a concept I’ve used for many years in relation to political spectrums. I have always been unsatisfied with the simple left/right and classic political spectrum (see below). So about 15 years ago I began to develop my own approach to completing a political spectrum. The great philosopher William McLaughlin tells us: “All the original ideas have already been had.” So in this light, I’m certain a similar approach has been laid out by others, but I’ve never come across one that I cared for. I’ve decided to share my approach in light of the on-going heavy debate and political atmosphere being engendered in the U.S. by the upcoming presidential elections. Please note however – before anyone tries to read anything into this from either side of the simple left/right scale – this was developed long before the current election furor.

Political Spectrums

Are you on the left or right? We can probably all relate to this concept. The simple political scale of left to right – or liberal to conservative – is a common enough concept. Even those adults that would term themselves as relatively uninformed in regard to politics – can grapple with and come to terms with themselves in relationship to this simple scale.

For example – someone slightly right of center or “a little conservative” may view themselves like this:

Beyond this basic scale is the “classic” political spectrum which also plots the governmental approach of the individual from libertarian to authoritarian. The resulting combination is often displayed in a grid like this:

This spectrum allows you to plot both relative liberal/conservative beliefs and your individual governmental approach to give a fuller view of your overall political philosophy. All you need is to understand the concepts of:

Fully defining each of these concepts alone can be a chore – but once you have a firm understanding of each you can begin the process of understanding spectrums.

For example – someone might plot themselves like this if they were very conservative and in favor of very limited government:

Additionally, you can find many alternate examples of these types of spectrums such as these:

Any of these examples accomplish the task of giving a relative spectrum view of one’s political outlook. You can add a simple grid to these types of spectrums to more easily plot – and add political and/or historical figures to help give perspective to the spectrum like this:

In plotting these grids you can hone your understanding of your own political views as well as others. The debates and arguments inherent in these are a healthy thing – allowing for discussion.

For example – here are two extreme plots – Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler – and while I think they are fairly accurate – I’m certain others would argue them:

Plotting historic figures is nothing however in comparison to plotting current or modern political figures. Try to plot out where you would put Reagan, Clinton, Thatcher, Khomeini, De Gaulle, or G.W. Bush and you will hear non-stop arguments. That’s the point however, when these arguments can take place with logic they can be healthy discourse.

Expanded BAI Political Spectrum

Now then, the purpose of this article is not to simply review these spectrums – but to offer an expanded alternate spectrum. The basic reasoning behind my desire to add to the classic spectrum is a belief that one’s political philosophy – no matter the type – is greatly impacted by the level of involvement the individual pursues in their society in relation to their views.

This third scale can be viewed as the scale between apathy and activism. So a person that views themselves as slightly uninvolved in relation to their personal political philosophy might plot themselves like this:

Finding an accessible means of plotting a full three dimensional model has its challenges. So before trying to display a full 3D view – let’s look at the three scales individually using the same examples as above combined with a person who is fairly authoritarian:

This is probably the most relatable view of this spectrum – allowing all three areas to be clearly seen.

For the truly analytical that want to plot within a three dimensional view the approach could look like a simple cube such as this:

The difficulty of this type of view is depth – it’s hard to discern points within the whole – especially if multiple points are being plotted.

More practically you can view it within a simplified inverse three dimensional plot chart along these lines:

If you apply a numeric scale to each series (X, Y, and Z) you can formulate a numeric representation that can be plotted. This can be an interesting exercise – especially for the analytically inclined. (A simple site where you can visualize this can be found here.)

So, in summary, my spectrum includes three simple sliding scales with which people can identify own their political philosophy – belief, approach, and involvement or BAI:

This “three scale view” seems to be the most accessible. If you feel the need to be precise – simply assign a scale (such as -100/0/100) to each and plot out the scores. Then you can reference the scores like this: BAI -25/90/85.

So give it a shot – plot yourself and think about how your personal BAI score impacts your view of the world and politics. Then try to apply it to some historical figures and modern political figures and see if it contributes to your understanding of them.